Tuesday, 26 May 2015

One of
the first moves made by a rampant Conservative government, following its election
victory, was to announce more restrictions on the operations of trade unions.

New
Business Secretary Sajid Javid wasted no time in announcing that the government
would legislate to force unions representing members in essential public
services to obtain 40% of those eligible to vote on a minimum 50% turn out of all
the workers. The government is also to relax existing regulations, thereby
permitting agency workers to replace striking workers.

The
attack on trade unions is no doubt the latest move from a fundamentalist neo-liberal
government set on seeking to remove any encumbrance remaining to the operation
of the market.

The move
is made all the more audacious given that the government itself was only
elected by 24% of the 46 million people eligible to vote.

Indeed,
the moves to outlaw strikes have focused attention on the undemocratic and
unrepresentative nature of the electoral system as it now operates. The last
election saw smaller parties like UKIP (12.6%) and the Greens (3.8%) take a
combined total of 5 million (16.1%) of the votes, yet receive just one seat
each. The Conservatives took 36.9% of the total votes cast (11,334,576). The
SNP took 56 seats but only stood in Scotland, thereby gaining a
disproportionate say on the affairs of the whole UK.

The
question of the overall democratic deficit is underlined by the fact that on a
66.6% turnout, one in three people did not vote at all. When the number of
votes, effectively counting very little under the present first past the post
system are taken into account, the existence of a democratic deficit becomes
all the more obvious.

Since the
election result there have been growing calls from across the spectrum for
electoral reform. The need for change has been on the agenda for some years,
the closest that the country ever came was when there was a referendum in 2011 on
the possibility of replacing first past the post with the Alternative Vote (AV)
– a form of proportional representation.

The AV
system proposed required the winning candidate to have more than 50% of the
vote. If on the initial count this was not the case then the second preference
votes of the bottom candidate were allocated. This process continued until one
candidate had 50% of the vote. The idea though was soundly rejected in the 2011
referendum, with 68% voting against compared to 32% in favour, on a 41% turnout
(19.1 million).

The more
radical version of proportional representation would see the number of votes a
party receives nationally reflected in the number of seats it finishes up with
in Parliament. Under a PR system, the results of the last election would have
seen the Conservatives with 240 rather than 331 seats and Labour 198 instead of
232 seats. The smaller parties would have profited, with UKIP getting 81 seats
for its 3.8 million votes rather than the present one. The Greens would have got
32 seats instead of the one they have now. The Liberal Democrats would have 51
seats instead of 8. The nationalist parties would have faired slightly worse,
with the SNP taking 47 as opposed to 56 seats for its 1.45 million votes in
Scotland.

One of
the concerns over the introduction of PR is that it would not provide the
stable (if often unrepresentative) form of government that first past the post
does. Coalitions would become more commonplace. Given that such coalitions
would likely be made up of more than two parties, the basis for instability is
obvious.

A little
more crystal ball gazing in terms of the result from the last election – had it
been on PR lines – certainly gives some food for thought. The Conservatives would
have to combine with UKIP and one of the other smaller parties – probably the
Liberal Democrats - to get the 326 seats required to form a government. Labour
would likely have had to put together a coalition involving the SNP, Liberal
Democrats and Greens.

One of
the democratic failings of PR is that it can cut the relationship between constituents
and their individual MP. Some PR elections are held in multiple member districts.

There are
two main forms of PR – party list PR and the single transferable vote (STV).

Under the
list system, the parties put forward candidates with the electorate voting by
party. The number of representatives emerging is then allocated according to
the percentage of the vote that each party attains. The weakness of this system
is that it totally destroys the link between the MP and his or her
constituents. It gives almost total power to the party machines to decide who
the representatives are for a particular area. The opportunities for patronage
and abuse are obvious.

The STV
is a bit like AV, allowing the preferences of an eliminated candidate to be
transferred to the others, until the winner or winners reach the threshold set
to get elected.

Mixed
member proportional representation (MMP), also known as the additional member
system (AMS), is a hybrid allowing one winner on the largest take of the vote
with the balance being made up via the list system. The voter has two votes,
one for the individual and another for the party list. This system preserves to
some degree the individual link between MP and constituents.

Some form
of PR is used in 94 countries, the list system being the most popular format
(85). MMP is used in seven countries while only Ireland and Malta use the STV.
MMP was first used in Germany, post second world war and spread to Lesotho,
Mexico, Bolivia and New Zealand. The AMS form has been used in the London,
Welsh and Scottish assembly elections.

The list
system of PR is used in elections to the European Parliament, with parties
putting forward candidates in order of preference. They are then elected
according to the overall vote for the party in that regional area. It is
perhaps a sobering thought to remember that in the European elections last year
UKIP came out as the largest party with 24 seats, compared to 20 for Labour and
19 for the Conservatives.

TUC
general secretary Frances O’Grady has called for electoral reform. “My
own sense is that this is an idea whose time has come. Our two-party system –
with an occasional walk-on part for a Lib Dem protest vote – may have worked in
the postwar decades, but is now irretrievably broken,” said Frances.” For those
of us whose main commitment to civil society is not through party politics, the
chance of a more serious national conversation can only be an opportunity for a
more open and fair society.”

Something certainly has to change, with parties winning
four million votes and only getting one seat in return, whilst one in every
three people don’t vote at all. Recent elections have shown growing support for
the smaller parties , so the first past the post system that favoured the two
party system is becoming increasingly unfit for purpose. The way forward would
seem to dictate a need to move to a more proportional form of representation,
though this will only make up part of what is required if the democratic
deficit is to be filled in the UK.*It has to be time at last for PR - see - Tribune - 10/7/2015

Thursday, 21 May 2015

Susan George, author and member of Transnational
Institute, has attacked the great con that has seen the promulgation of austerity
as a means to increase the flow of wealth from the poor to the rich.

Addressing the General Federation of Trade Unions conference in Leicester, George
pointed out that a crisis is something that happens and is over one way or the
other – win or lose.”You don’t stay in a crisis from 2008 to 2015 – austerity
has prolonged the crisis,” said George, who underlined how well those in the
financial markets have been doing with the rise in foreign exchange contracts
from 3.3 to 5.3 trillion between 2007 and 2013. Derivatives rose from 508
trillion in 2007 to 693 trillion in 2010.

She quoted the Tax Justice network figures
suggesting there are between £21 and £32 trillion stuffed away in tax
havens.”If we could tax some of this at a small rate it would clear up most of
the problems in the world,” said George.

George criticised the transfer of wealth from labour
to capital over the past 35 years, from the moment Margaret Thatcher came to
power. The ratios have gone from 70% going to labour and 30% to capital in the
1970s to 60% versus 40% today.

George suggested that the concentration and
interdependency of huge corporations at the centre of capitalism make another
financial crisis of 2008 proportions more likely, indeed it will probably be
worse.

The academic explained how the neo-liberal economic
system made no sense in capitalist or socialist terms. The ideas have been sold
as a result of an intellectual offensive by the apostles of the neo-liberal
creed who have infiltrated media worldwide with the orthodoxy.

George called for unions to look outward to build
broad coalitions with others involved in the anti-capital movement, whether
grass root or non-governmental organisations like Friends of the Earth. “I
dream of a European general strike,” said George. “We need a coalition of the
willing. Unless what is left of the left get together it will be a sad future
for all of us.”

Wednesday, 20 May 2015

TSSA general secretary Manuel Cortes led the call to form a federation of small unions.

Addressing the General Federation of Trade Unions Cortes called for the unions to reach out to those workers not in unions. “The politics of hope will triumph over fear,” said Cortes, who urged support for moves for unions to “pool resources” including the possibility of building a multi-union HQ and sharing office space.

Ben Marshall of Prospect supported the motion pointing out the sense of sharing facilities. “It is a federation of small unions being proposed, an alternative to the rush to merger. Sharing premises makes massive sense,” said Marshall.

The motion passed mandating a summit in November to take the proposal forward.

General secretary of the GFTU Doug Nicholls has called on the trade union movement to prepare the leaders of tomorrow and force the history of the labour movement onto school curriculums.

Addressing the GFTU annual conference, Mr Nicholls called on “teachers to defy the official curriculum and teach every young person about unions.”

Mr Nicholls called for a focus on trade union education, declaring that the Tories teach “arrogance” via the private schools and Oxbridge education.

He called for a more serious approach being taken to teaching about trade unions.

The GFTU has signed a partnership agreement with the University of Wolverhampton, as a first step on this route, working with progressive academics to spread the word. “We are well placed too over the next five years to focus on the remaining priority in the movement, the engagement of young leaders. I will challenge any trade unionist or affiliate that is not seriously developing the youth manifesto we have created and anyone who is blocking the rise of young members in our ranks. Quite simply we need to develop thousands of young workers this year to ensure that we never feel as bad as we did on the day after the election this year, said Mr Nicholls.

Motions passed calling for support of the White Ribbon campaign outlawing domestic violence worldwide, support for migrant workers and highlighting the housing crisis.

Tuesday, 19 May 2015

President of the GFTU John Fray has claimed that Britain is on the drift to a dictatorship under the present Conservative Government.

The GFTU president warned that the Tories wou"now be full of confidence, feeling free once again to target trade unions with deliberate intention to legally restrict our member's rights to take actions to protect and improve their terms and conditions."He added that "the Tories also intend to weaken our human rights and gerrymander the constituencies to make sure even more seats fall to the Tories in 2020."

Fray outlined what had gone wrong for the Labour Party in the general election, with UKIP biting into the core vote. “We must get rid of the anti-trade union Tories,” said Fray, who called for trade unions to stop being marginalised and make their voices heard. “The GFTU must make sure we’re on the platform. Trade unions big or small have a right to a voice and a vision,” said Fray, who called for the trade unions to train up future leaders.

Adrian Weir, assistant national secretary of Unite, warned of the dangers represented by the proposed TTIP agreement.

He illustrated this point with concerns of the US trade unions that could see their rights downgraded to south east Asian levels under the same type of agreements as TTIP, rather than pushed up to European standards. European workers equally have the concern of their rights being reduced to US levels.

Weir hit an optimistic note, claiming that the battle can be won just as it had been back in the 1990s, when the corporate inspired Multilateral Agreement on Investment was defeated. Already, the agreement has hit troubles in the US Congress.

“There are 2 million signed up to a petition in opposition to TTIP – we can and must win,” said Weir.

Robert Mooney of Community gave an impassioned account of a trade union visit to Bhopal on the 30th anniversary of the Union Carbide accident.

Mooney recalled how 8,000 died at the time, with a further 25,000 dying since. “At best this was culpable homicide,” said Mooney, who recalled that children are still being forced to drink contaminated water.

Roberto Calzadilla, Bolivian ambassador to Britain, told how under the presidency of Eva Morales wages had increased fourfold and everyone over 60 has the right to a pension.

Calzadilla outlined President Eva Morales vision of living a life that was in balance with the community and planet. “We consider water a human right. The leader’s vision is to live well, in balance, sleep, eat well, care about your neighbour-it is about getting into balance,” said Calzadilla, who recalled how the role of the state in Bolivia is redistributing wealth

TUC general secretary Frances O’Grady declared that
the Labour Party remains the best bet for working people and now is no time to
be talking about setting up a new party of the left.

Addressing the GFTU conference, O’Grady surveyed the
ruins of the election campaign which saw a move to the SNP north of the border
and the English nationalism of UKIP bite into Labour’s core vote in England.

“My view is that workers have more in common with
each other across borders than they do with a London stock broker or Edinburgh
banker,” said O’Grady, who did though concede that the Labour Party gave too
much ground to the economics of austerity.

On the positive side, O’Grady believes that it will
not be all plain sailing for David Cameron with potential problems coming from
the SNP and his own backbenchers. “Some of those backbenchers are for hug a
hoody, others make Norman Tebbit look like a bleeding heart liberal,” said
O’Grady, who also saw potential problems of division coming for the Tories over
EU referendum and their own internal leadership battle to succeed Cameron.

The TUC GS called for “unity and discipline” in
opposing the attacks of the Tories on trade union rights.

“This is a crucial time for our movement and the
people we represent,” said O’Grady, who declared that “the TUC will always
stand on the side of the worker taking strike action.”

The TUC leader called for the movement to put more
effort into organising, particularly in the private sector. “These are tough
times for our movement, we must get out and organise, then together we will
win.”

John Hendy, QC, told the conference that the Tory
Government government is determined to destroy the trade unions as the next
stage toward the fulfilment of the neo-liberal capitalist agenda.

Hendy highlighted how there were 80% of workers
under collective bargaining agreements in 1979 but that this was now down to
20%.

He warned that after the government’s initial
efforts to raise voting thresholds required to get a strike and making it
possible for agency workers to be used as strike breakers, would be followed by
efforts to remove check off, facility time and political funding.

Hendy called for the trade union movement to put
collective bargaining at the top of their industrial and political agenda.
“Collective bargaining is the only way workers voices can be heard at work. It
is an argument for social justice,” said Hendy, who credited much of the
growing inequality in society to the demise of collective bargaining.

The lawyer called for any future commitment to the
Labour Party to be conditional on it supporting the restoration of collective
bargaining and the right to strike. “Unless the Labour Party support those two
points they do not deserve the support of the trade union movement,” said
Hendy.

Other motions passed calling for the outlawing of
zero hours contract and the implementation of a £10 minimum wage

Monday, 18 May 2015

The big question dominating all events at West Ham these days is whether manager Sam Allardyce is going or staying.

There was little in this match to confirm the matter either way. Allardyce himself appears to remain in the dark, lamenting that “everyone in football has very short memories” only remembering things that happened a week or two ago, not three or four months previously.

The manager set out his philosophy as being to entertain and win, not as was the case in this match to entertain and lose.

The game was played at a good tempo throughout with some good passing movements from both sides. The first half saw Leon Osman force a smart save from Adrian away to his right, whilst Stewart Downing broke through for the Hammers to see his rasping shot similarly dealt with by Tim Howard.

The tempo increased in the second half, when West Ham took the lead, with Alex Song slipping a ball through for the advancing Stewart Downing to sweep home.

The home side only held on though for six minutes before Romelu Lukaku got away on the right to cross over for Osman to finish expertly turning to lash the ball home.

It looked as though spoils would be even, until the curse of West Ham’s season struck once again in the final minute of injury time. A cross game over, letting West Ham’s bogey man Lukaku get inbetween defenders to head home.

Both teams remain in contention for the Europa League under the fair play rules, though it was Roberto Martinez who was the happier of the two managers, confirming he was happier to have won 2-1, despite having four players booked. In turn Allardyce declared he would have preferred to have had four, instead of one player, booked and come away with the three points.

The fans remain in the dark, as to who will be manager next season, the only clue being an interview Allardyce in the match day programme, where to the question: “if there was one place on earth you could visit where would it be,” he replied Hawaii. Strange then that as the players came out for their lap of honour after the defeat the tune theme tune Hawaii Five O rang out – is the club trying to tell us something?

Friday, 15 May 2015

The Tablet magazine believes the leading lay
Catholic in British life is Bank of England governor Mark Carney.

Carney heads the list of the leading 100 lay
Catholics, with Chief Inspector of Schools Sir Michael Wilshire taking the
runner up spot followed by Robert Hannigan, the director of GCHQ.

The criterion used to come up with this list is
difficult to define, with Catholics from many walks of public life being
highlighted. So there are those two old corporate favourites of the Catholic
Church, Paul Polman, CEO of Unilever (8) and Vittorio Colao, CEO of Vodafone
(26).

Many will be disturbed to see the former Prime
Minister Tony Blair coming in at 17th, just pipping Work and
Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith (18).

Football pops up in the middle ranks, with Wayne
Rooney and wife Coleen coming in at 46, just ahead of Chelsea
manager Jose Mourinho, who shares 48th place with player Didier
Droghba.

The arts are represented with Frank Cottrell Boyce
(53) and Danny Boyle (63). Though while they seem to win just about any TV
award going Ant and Dec can only muster 78th on the Tablet list.

The workers don’t seem rate very highly, with TUC general secretary Frances O’Grady being the sole
representative coming in at 81st –six behind the Duke of Norfolk.

Bringing up the rear on the Tablet list are its own
old timers Austen Ivereigh, former deputy editor of the Tablet and Catholic Voices
co-founder, (99) and columnist Clifford Longley (100).

The list will no doubt stir debate, though perhaps
the most interesting discussion should be about how much this says about
Catholics in public life and how much it is an indication of tastes at the Tablet?

Wednesday, 13 May 2015

There are certainly many questions arising for the
Labour Party from the disasterous election result.

Deputy leader Harriet Harman has announced that
analysis is now ongoing as to what happened. The analysis will be interesting
and maybe should be made public before voting on the new leader takes place.

What was clear from this election has been the
slide toward X factor come US presidential politics. Almost the entire media
coverage-particularly broadcast-focused on the leaders.

The media coverage was one sided, playing a
sizeable role in securing another term for the Conservatives. The constant
sniping at Ed Miliband - in an often personal way - no doubt took its toll with
the electorate. Miliband on the whole had a good campaign, though the tablets
of stone debacle three days before people went out to vote was something that
Labour could have done without.

The two areas where the Conservatives seemed to
score over Labour was on management of the economy and the danger of having the
SNP in government.

The economy question went back to the old claim
that Labour was entirely responsible for the deficit, so could not be trusted
with the economy again.

The party failed to get over the line that the
global banking crisis was the major reason for the deficit. Indeed, it could
have gone further, arguing that the previous Labour government actually managed
the economy very well.

The ten years from 1997 to 2007 saw a booming
economy, though there was a failure to redistribute wealth among the mass of
people who created it. Then, when the crisis hit, the actions taken by Gordon
Brown and Alistair Darling did save the situation not only here but Europe
wide. Yes the banks should have been regulated more tightly but as Miliband did
point out a few times, the Tories wanted even lighter regulation, so it was a
bit rich their arguing things would have been different had they been in power.

The Labour team failed in the leader debates to
sufficiently diffuse the economy slurs. For some reason Miliband did not have
the stats available to expose the Tory lies. Stats like that the Coalition
borrowed more in 5 years than Labour did in 13 years.

With hindsight Labour should also have fought the
Tory lie over the economy meltdown over the past five years. Instead it was accepted
because for much of that time Miliband and co were trying to put some distance
between themselves and Blair and Brown’s new labour. The result a perfect
storm, which enabled the Tories with the help of the compliant right wing press
to make the lie stick.

On the SNP, the Labour Party stance about not doing
deals and attacking the nationalists no doubt hacked off the few Scots still
prepared to support the party. The message clearly seemed to be that England
was more important than Scotland.

Moving forward Labour has problems. The claims of
the likes of David Miliband and would be leader Chuka Umuna that the party must
move more to appeal to the aspirations of middle England – the old Blairite
mantra – are totally wrong. It has been this approach that has lost Labour so
much of its core vote, particularly in Scotland.

How does going after the aspiring Middle England vote halt the inroads of UKIP into the core vote in places like Sunderland, Dagenham and Barking, where the far right party came second to Labour?

Labour has to win back its core vote, increasingly
from UKIP in England and the SNP in Scotland. What is the strategy of Umuna to
win back Labour votes where the nationalists are biting into them?

The question that Umuna and Miliband do raise in a
way is how do the Labour Party deal with a media that is so blatantly right
wing. The coverage of the elections shows that the media seems only likely to
accept a blue or a lighter shade of blue Labour Party as a possible alternative
government to the Tories in Britain.

New labour did master the media because what was
being offered was a lighter shade of blue. Ed Miliband’s Labour sort to move off
slightly to the left, without ever ditching the austerity element that
infuriated so many people especially in Scotland.

The Labour Party needs to reform. It must re-democratise
itself, giving members the power to make policy via the conference. Conference
must be restored as the supreme policy making body of the party.

At present thousands of party members across the
land, run around working for the election of Labour Mps. Many of the candidates
come from a careerist group who have trod the path of university, researcher
and/or special advisor or in popular parlance: people who have never had a
proper job in their lives.

The grassroots work is accompanied by a regular
email assault from the party’s organsation, generally patronising people
telling them they can do more and often asking for a donation. One of the most
annoying of these communicaes came in the heat of the election campaign reading
Paul we’ve noticed you haven’t donated – why is this? Another in the name of
Justine Miliband, the day before election day, no doubt intended for a three
year old, on how she was going to vote and I should do the same thing.

Treating people like children, expecting them to
give of their time, then asking for money the whole time, whilst offering no
input to the policy making processes of the party, which are reserved for the
elite, is no way to be running a party seriously seeking power in the 21st
century.

The Party really does need to grow up regarding the
way in which it treats members and their roles for the future.

So yes there are many challenges facing the party
moving forward. The new leader must have a clear vision but also be able to
appeal to the X factor style media circus that erupts at election time.

The Party must get back to its roots or die. How
many votes did the austerity light policy cost in the final analysis? The party
must also democratise itself, stop treating members like imbeciles and start
listening to what they have to say.

It must stand with the trade unions, particularly
in the upcoming onslaught over rights to strike etc. The days of attacking the
unions in order to gain brownie points with the bosses and right wing media
must be put well and truly into the past. If the Labour Party does not stand
for the rights of working people then it stands for nothing.

Monday, 4 May 2015

There has been a growing debate in the run-up to the general election on the validity of voting.The debate was sparked by comedian Russell Brand, who caused a stir when he declared: “It is not that I am not voting out of apathy. I am not voting out of absolute indifference and weariness and exhaustion from the lies, treachery and deceit of the political class that has been going on for generations.”He suggested that politicians were only interested in “serving the needs of corporations” and that an administrative system based on the “massive redistribution of wealth” should replace the status quo.Brand’s argument chimes with those who declare that the parties are all the same and out of touch with ordinary people.The seeming disillusionment with voting has come about over the past couple of decades. Voting levels in general elections stayed in the 70 to 80 per cent range pretty much from 1918 to 1997. There were highs and lows. The highest turnout for a general election came in 1950 when Clement Attlee’s post-war Labour government was re-elected on an 83.9 per cent turnout. The lowest turnout came in 1918, when just 57.2 per cent of the electorate turned out to vote in war-torn Britain.Turnouts though do seem to have been on a steady decline since 1992, when there was a 77.7 per cent turnout to return John Major to Downing Street. Some 71 per cent voted to secure Tony Blair’s landslide victory in 1997. It was then that the disillusion seemed to set in with turnouts of 59.4 per cent (2001) and 61.4 per cent (2005).There was a bit of recovery in 2010 with a 65.1 per cent turnout.A survey by Survation in September 2013 took a detailed look at the attitudes of non-voters. When asked: “What would you say were your main reasons for not voting in the last the election?” over half of respondents expressed disillusionment with contemporary politics.Some 27 percent of those polled said they “don’t believe my vote will make any difference,” while 25 per cent said the “parties/candidates are all the same.”There is though also a distinct difference in voting tendencies down the generations. So in the last election, just 44 per cent of 18 to 24-year-olds voted compared to 76 per cent of over-65s.This tendency of older people to vote while the young don’t has helped fuel the intergenerational argument in the media. The coalition government, it is argued, has recognised that older people are more likely to vote, so they have responded accordingly, seeking to serve this group of people.On the other side, the tendency of youth not to participate gives them less traction, so they have been hit harder by austerity-based policies. There is some truth in this view, which of course offers a powerful argument for voting.The question as to why so many people feel so disillusioned with politicians and government no doubt has its roots in much of what has gone on over recent years. We have seen a decade of disillusionment with public institutions generally. There was the financial crisis, police corruption, the phone-hacking scandal and most pertinently, the MPs’ expenses scandal.It has been these developments over the past couple of decades, coupled with a coming together of the mainstream parties around the basic neoliberal economic agenda, that has bred disillusionment with the political system and voting.There is another unhealthy development on the right, which has flourished when people are disillusioned with voting and the democratic process — the favouring of “good governance” over democracy. This is an authoritarian market-driven viewpoint.The most obvious manifestation of this has been seen in Italy, where in the wake of the financial crisis the democratically elected government was replaced by a technocratic alternative that was to the liking of the markets.It was an obvious example of “governance” taking precedence over democracy or, perhaps more accurately, of markets deciding what sort of democracy they are prepared to permit.The opposite side of this coin was seen in Greece, where the people revolted against the austerity policies demanded by the markets and elected Syriza. This was a case of democracy striking back. The people were infuriated at being forced into poverty at the behest of the corporations and neoliberal European governments.How things work out in Greece will have significance for the battle between democracy and governance. If the markets don’t like what a democratically elected government does then they have huge powers to destabilise that country, cutting off credit, destabilising currencies and so on. Equally, though, in the final analysis, if people’s votes don’t count the only route left is revolt.Developments in Italy and other countries in the wake of the financial crisis of 2008 show that the calls for good governance, rather than healthy democracy, have grown louder.It is wise to remember at these times the populist governance pledges of the fascists of the last century. The vote has been a right long fought for by working people. It was not easy to force the ruling classes to yield this very basic right. Now is not the time to be offering it up on the altar of technocratic market-based economic efficiency.As John McDonnell MP has said: “Each time a person says they don’t vote, the rich and powerful corporations celebrate. It means that they are that bit freer to do whatever they like because there is nobody to hold them to account. When people don’t vote the worst elements take control.”

Friday, 1 May 2015

Labour shadow International Development spokesperson Mary Creagh has expressed her concerns over the growing inequality in the UK. Her concerns were voiced against a background context of the Trussell Trust declaring that 1,087,000 people had visited its foodbanks in the last year, whilst the Sunday Times rich list reported that there are now 117 billionaires living in the UK (up 17 on last year.) The rich list also confirmed that the richest 1,000 had doubled their wealth over the past six years, going from £258 billion to £547 billion.

“We know in Britain that over one million people used foodbanks in the last year– people should not have to work for their own poverty,” said Creagh. “There is no reason to have this level of hunger in the seventh richest country in the world.”

Trussell Trust statistics show low pay and the administration of benefits, particularly the application of sanctions, have been major causes of people going to foodbanks.

Creagh believes that implementation of a living wage as championed by the churches and regulating zero hours contracts would be two good ways of combatting the sort of low pay that leads people to go to food banks. “We want more employers to promote the living wage and sign ‘make work pay contracts’,” said Creagh, who also promoted how the Labour government intend to raise the minimum wage to £8 an hour by 2019 and push for more prosecutions of those who fail to pay the minimum wage. There have been just two prosecutions in recent years.

“We would also ban exploitative zero hours contracts, so when someone has worked 12 weeks they would get a contract with the hours set out,” said Creagh, who told how zero hours contracts had risen to 1.8 million over recent years.

The Labour Party also plans to get rid of the sanction targets being set at job centres.

The Labour Party has made a big play of its commitment to improve the NHS, pledging to cap private company’s profits and cut waiting times. It has though been coyer about the role played by the Private Finance Initiative deals, which were deployed during the previous Labour administration and continued under the Coalition Government. Critics claim the burden of debt to private sector companies under these contracts are also impacting on health care.

Creagh was keen to push Labour’s commitment to cut waiting times both at Accident and Emergency in hospitals and for appointments at GPs surgeries. The party also intends to employ more doctors and nurses. She defended PFIs though, declaring that they “transferred the risk from the public to the private sector” with the responsibility for maintaining the facility over 30 years being undertaken by the private company. The shadow spokesperson did though admit that her party had got some things wrong in the early days on PFIs.

Creagh is keen for the battle against climate change to be given a much higher profile under a future government. Speaking from an overseas aid viewpoint she echoed CAFOD claims about the amount of poverty being brought on by the failure to truly tackle climate change. “Then at home there we have seen the effects of climate change in the form of things like the terrible floods of recent years,” said Creagh, who stressed that combatting climate change cannot be seen as an add on but a key central part of the government’s agenda.

The shadow development spokesperson stressed that the Catholic Social Teaching concepts of “dignity, solidarity and subsidiarity” lie at the heart of the Labour Party’s approach to government.

She condemned the nationalism of UKIP and the SNP as not providing the type of approach needed to tackle the problems that the country faces today.